Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Minutes 09-10-90MINUTES TUSTIN PLANNING COI~'SS'rON REGUL~ MEET~'N~ SEPTEMBER ~.0 · :1.990 C&LL TO ORDER~ 7: 00 p.m., City Council Chambers PLEDGE OF ~,LLE~'~I~CE/II~VOC~,T~'ON ROLL C~,LL: PRESENT: Shaheen, Baker, Kasparian, Kasalek (Le Jeune absent) PUBLIC CONCEITS: (Limited to 3 minutes per person for items not on the agenda.) IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK TO THE COMMISSION ON A SUBJECT, PLEASE FILL OUT THE CARDS LOCATED ON THE SPEAKER'S TABLE. ALSO, PLEASE GIVE YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. CONSENT CALEND~R: (ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS PRIOR TO THE TIME OF THE VOTING ON THE MOTION UNLESS MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, STAFF OR PUBLIC REQUEST SPECIFIC ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED AND/OR REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR SEPARATE ACTION.) 1. Minutes of the Auqust 27, 1990 Planning Commission meeting. 2. Final Tract Map 13788 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: WESTERN NATIONAL PROPERTIES 620 THE CITY DRIVE SOUTH ORANGE, CA 92668 IRVINE PACIFIC P.O. BOX I NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS CONSIDERED MINISTERIALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15268(B) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 9.75 ACRES INTO 4 NUMBERED LOTS AND 5 LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 170 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT/CONDOMINIUM DWELLING UNITS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2829, as submitted or revised, recommending approval to the City Council of Final Tract Map 13788. Presentation: Christopher E. Jackson, Sr., Associate Planner 3. Final Tract MaD 13746 APPLICANT: LOCATION: AKINS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY JAMBOREE CENTER 5 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 400 IRVINE, CA 92714 LOTS 14, W, AND X Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUS EIR (85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. AUTHORIZATION TO SUBDIVIDE 17.464 ACRES INTO 3 NUMBERED LOTS AND 4 LETTERED LOTS TO ACCOMMODATE 316 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2830, as submitted or revised, recommending approval to the City Council of Final Tract Map 13746. Presentation: Anne E. Bonner, Assistant Planner 4. Modification No. 2 to Design Review 88-46 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: REGIS CONTRACTORS, INC. 5120 CAMPUS DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 IRVINE PACIFIC 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658 PLANNED COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL: MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT (CLASS 3) PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15303 (E) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. AUTHORIZATION TO ADD A MAINTENANCE BUILDING TO AN APPROVED 238 UNIT APARTMENT/CONDOMINIUM PROJECT. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 2823, approving modifications to the previously approved site plan for Design Review 88-46, subject to the conditions contained in Exhibit A, attached thereto, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christopher E. Jackson, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian moved, Kasalek seconded to approve the consent calendar as submitted. Motion carried 3-0, Commissioner Baker abstained. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 0 Amendments to Desiqn Review 87-37 and Conditional Use Permit 88-15 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD, SUITE 300 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 THE IRVINE COMPANY 550 NEWPORT CENTER DRIVE NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92658-8904 ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE (THEATER/RETAIL COMPLEX), TUSTIN MARKET PLACE MIXED USE - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15311 (A) (CLASS 3 AND CLASS 11) OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA). Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 3 REQUEST: 1. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO DESIGN REVIEW 87-37 TO ALLOW REVISIONS TO LIGHTING AT BUILDINGS A, B & C OF THE ENTERTAINMENT VILLAGE (THEATER/RETAIL COMPLEX) OF THE TUSTIN MARKET PLACE. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-15 TO ALLOW A THEATER MARQUEE MONUMENT SIGN. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve amendments to Design Review 87-37 and Conditional Use Permit 88-15 by adopting Resolution No. 2822, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Paula Rankin, Associate Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if the heights of the tubing could be installed as low as one foot; and asked for further information regarding the marquis monument sign area. Staff replied that they were all above 10 feet but less than 25 feet. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:10 p.m. Glenn M¥ors, Donahue Schriber, noted that the incorporation of the neon lighting had been discussed since the outset of the project; that it is to be a fun and festive area; that they utilized a lighting consultant with Leason Pomeroy; and that it is an excellent plan. Commissioner Kasparian asked how they determined a need for a 200 square foot sign. Mr. Myors replied that the proposed sign is similar to other projects within the Marketplace; that the size of the sign is proportional to the size of the center; and that the titles are readable. CommissiQDer Kasparian noted that he viewed a theater sign at MacArthur and Main which was 11 feet wide by 7 feet high; that the theater had eight (8) movies and was quite readable from the street; and that he was opposed to a 10 x 20 foot sign. Mr. Myors replied that consistent. the project was proportionate and The Public Hearing was closed at 7:14 p.m. Commissioner Kasparian noted that he felt that a 200 foot sign was too large; that the intent is to identify the theater, but that the corner of the building near the sign has "Edwards" name on it; that he recommends a sign of 7 feet x 11 feet; and that he objects to the sign in the interest of refusing to proliferate larger signs. Commiss$oner Baker noted that he believes in signs and that they need to be seen; and asked how far the sign on MacArthur was from the street. Commissioner Kasparian replied that it was 15-20 feet from the street in the parkway; and that the theater is farther away from the sign than the Tustin theater would be. Commissioner Shaheen asked how much smaller of a sign Commissioner Kasparian was proposing. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 4 Commissioner Kasparian replied approximately 7 feet by 11 feet. Commissioner Kasalek noted that since the complex was large with wide walls, a 20 foot sign would not seem out of place; that the theater needs visibility; and that she agreed with Commissioner Baker. Commissioner Baker noted that the neon seemed "glitzy", but that the center needs bright lights. Commissioner Kasalek noted that the colors of the neon would draw in the colors of the building accents. Commissioner Shaheen agreed. Commissioner Kasparian went on record as opposing Item 2 regarding the monument sign. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to approve amendments to Design Review 87-37 and Conditional Use Permit 88-15 by adoption of Resolution No. 2822 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Kasparian indicated that he was not opposed to the whole action but to the height of the Edwards sign. 6. Variance 90-12 and Conditional Use Permit 90-22 APPLICANT: OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DICK HSU TUSTIN ACURA 9 AUTO CENTER DRIVE TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA 92680 DCH TRADING CORP. 15541 S. WESTERN AVENUE GARDENA, CALIFORNIA 90249 9 AUTO CENTER DRIVE LOT 17, TRACT 12763 PLANNED COMMUNITY - AUTO CENTER PLANNED COMMUNITY - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THE VARIANCE FOR THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (84-2) FOR THE TUSTIN AUTO CENTER. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE PLANNED COMMUNITY - AUTO CENTER STANDARDS TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF A 17.5 FOOT HIGH 21,840 SQUARE FOOT STORAGE BUILDING WITH 21,676 SQUARE FEET OF ROOF TOP PARKING TO BE LOCATED AT 9 AUTO CENTER DRIVE. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A TEMPORARY STORAGE LOT TO PARK UP TO 100 NEW CARS DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE STORAGE BUILDING ON A VACANT LOT LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF MYFORD ROAD AND EL CAMINO REAL. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination by adoption of Resolution 2834; 2. Approve Variance 90-12 by adoption of Resolution No. 2827, as submitted or revised, and 3. Approve Conditional Use Permit 90-22 by adoption of Resolution No. 2828, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Christopher E. Jackson, Associate Planner Staff noted that Bob Ledendecker informed staff that Item 3.1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2828 could be deleted since the project is temporary, and changed as moved. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 5 The Public Hearing was opened at 7:32 p.m The Public Hearing was closed at 7:33 p.m. Commissioner Baker noted that the Acura dealership was successful; that the project conforms with little assistance; and that he was in favor of the project. Commissioner Kasalek agreed. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to approve Variance 90-12 by adoption of Resolution No. 2827 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-22 by adoption of Resolution No. 2828 as revised: Delete Item 3.1, Exhibit A, Page 2, and renumber. Motion carried 4-0. Comm~ss~oner Baker moved, Kasalek seconded to approve Environmental Determination by adoption of Resolution 2834 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. 7. Vestinq Tentative Tract Map 14183, Design Review 89-85 APPLICANT/ OWNER: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: THE BREN COMPANY 5 CIVIC PLAZA, SUITE 100 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTENTION: MR. RICHARD K. SASE LOTS 4, R AND S OF TRACT 13627 MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (NO. 85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. 1. AUTHORIZATION TO CREATE 6 NUMBERED LOTS AND 3 LETTERED LOTS FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES TO ACCOMMODATE 180 DWELLING UNITS. 2. APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN AND ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2824; 2. Approve Design Review 89-85 by adopting Resolution No. 2825, as submitted or revised. 3. Recommend to the City Council approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14183 by adopting Resolution No. 2826, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Staff made changes to the staff report, as moved; and noted that there are two (2) emergency access roads on Greenway. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there was any difference, legally, if the Resolution was approved before the Tentative Tract Map. Lois Jeffrey, City Attorney, replied that there was no difference, legally. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. ~, director of project management for the Bren Company, thanked staff for their help; noted that they incorporated all of their suggestions; that the conditions of approval and staff report Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 6 were acceptable; and the future project on Lot 4 of Phase 4 will be similar. The Public Hearing was closed at 7:42 p.m Commissioner Kasparian noted that it looks like a nice project with nothing objectionable. Commiss$oner Baker noted that the applicant proposed less density than initially approved. Commissioner Kasalek noted that she drove by and that it looks great. Commissioner Shaheen also approved. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Environmental Determination by adoption of Resolution No. 2824 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Design Review 89-85 by adoption of Resolution No. 2825 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. Commissioner Baker moved, Kasparian seconded to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 14183 by adoption of Resolution No. 2826 as revised: Page 9, Item C: Replace Greenway with Pioneer Road. Motion carried 4-0. 8. General Plan Amendment 90-02 and Zone Chanqe 90-03 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: CITY OF TUSTIN 300 CENTENNIAL WAY TUSTIN, CA 92680 THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES FORM AN IRREGULARLY SHAPED BOUNDARY WEST OF NEWPORT AVENUE, LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH AND SOUTH OF EDGEWOOD PRIVATE SCHOOL. UNCLASSIFIED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS BEEN PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 90-02; TO CLASSIFY SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE GENERAL PLAN LAND PLAN AS PC (PLANNED COMMUNITY). 2. ZONE CHANGE 90-03; TO ZONE THE PROPERTY FROM CLASSIFIED TO PC (PLANNED COMMUNITY) Recommendation - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Adopt Resolution No. 2835 by approving the Environmental Determination; and 2. Adopt Resolution No. 2819 and 2820 recommending approval of General Plan Amendment 90-02 and Zone Change 90-03 to the City Council. Presentation: Susan Tebo, Senior Planner Commissioner Kasparian asked if staff referenced 9244 E1 of the Zoning Code which requires a conditional use permit for professional or general offices; if the City will require a CUP for the existing offices; and if the zoning changes would require any of the current residents to upgrade their properties. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 7 Lois Jeffrey replied that they are either legally conforming or non-conforming offices. The Director replied that if the use is in conformance with previous designation, it can remain as long as the owner does not alter the it by more than 50% of the current property value. Commiss$oDer Kasparian asked if the properties were reviewed for any historical resources. Staff replied that it was reviewed and none were found. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of the boundaries of the annexation. The Director replied that Exhibit B provided information regarding boundary locations. The Public Hearing was opened at 7:55 p.m. Steven Johnson, 17662 Irvine Blvd., noted that he served on the North Tustin Specific Plan (NTSP) Committee for about two years with extensive hearings; that he appreciated the staff's intention to implement the goals of the NTSP; that the plan only permitted 18 units per acre for E1 Dorado Garden Apartments which was already built when the plan was installed; to be consistent with the Plan 15 units per acre should be eliminated; that the plan calls for 10,000 square foot lots; that "Unlisted Use" should be deleted since all uses that are not permitted in the NTSP are prohibited; that a unique project should require a zone change; that the NTSP has specific prohibitions regarding signage; that the Tustin sign code should not extend to this area; that the Site Plan Review Process is very specific, is subject to a Public Hearing, which is not clear in this document; that minor "modifications and adjustments" should be eliminated unless standards are enforced; and unless there is someone with a plan in progress, he suggests that the City continue this item for further discussion. Bill Weber, President Foothill Communities Association, asked if this document permits multi-family development; if it permits medical office buildings; and noted that since the annexation was subject to litigation, he questioned whether it was wise to pursue this document at this time. The Director replied that the plan permits planned developments in the RSFGO designation; and that cluster developments under the City's current zoning designation is the same as the County's. Commissioner Shaheen asked if there was a legal conflict with this project. Lois Jeffrey replied that she sees no legal conflict; that there is a challenge to the annexation; and that if the court determines that the annexation is invalid, then the area will return as it was; and that their action this evening would have no effect on the litigation. Mr. Weber commented that the Director's answer indicated that multi-family development would be permitted, but that it was not allowed under the NTSP; and that the zoning was supposed to be identical to the NTSP, which is not the case; that multi-family development was their objection with Annexation 147, and remains their concern; that if multi-family and medical are permitted they have no option but to object and pursue the litigation. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 8 Neil Harkleroad, 10562 Mira Vista, Santa Ana, noted that he served on the county-appointed NTSP Committee ten (10) years ago; that the reasons for the specific requirements in the County plan was due to dealing with mostly residential properties whose best anticipated future use was considered to be other than residential; that to change to garden-office could adversely affect the neighboring residences; that the applicant had to submit detailed plans so that the adjoining community could review and determine if they would be adversely impacted; that there was a public hearing at the site plan review stage; that Exhibit B does not provide for public review; that in the recent past there has been a large apartment building that severely impacted the adjoining neighbors and has caused considerable trouble within the City; that this is the kind of confrontation that the NTSP tried to avoid; that the NTSP allows 28 foot high buildings and this plan allows 35 foot high; that although this refers to the properties of about 1,700 feet on Newport Avenue, the plans also refer to properties on Red Hill and 17th Street; that the plan is actually a General Plan amendment that the City expects to use for future annexations; that the maximum density allowed for new residences is 6 1/2 units per acre, yet the 10-acre Prescott property at 17th and Newport would be allowed to become commercial or be built to 15 units per acre which are not allowed in the NTSP; that if passed, this would be an automatic target for strife between North Tustin and the City; and that he recommends that a workshop between the NTSP committees and staff to clarify the objectives. Nancy Hamilton, 18681 Eunice Place, noted that her home is behind a vacant lot at the north end of this area; that any two-story building would have a direct observation of her yard and home which is not a small loss of privacy. She also commented that her complaints about the plan are: that the same restrictions for non- residential units do not apply to multi-family units; that the regulations require screening of air conditioning and refuse from the street, but not from their house; that the specific plan did not intend to allow multi-family units in the area; that staff's interpretation of RSF would allow her to tear down her house and build a multi-family dwelling with no regard to her neighbors; that allowing multi-family units is not in the City's best interest; that Warren was decided to be a good buffer for single-family units; that the City has 70% of its units as multi-family and asked why they would want more; that she asked for the elimination of the multi-family units; and that there should be more discussion to rectify mistakes before action is taken. Francine Pace Scinto, representing FCA Land Use Committee, noted that the comments this evening indicate that there are conflicts in the perception of the NTSP; that North Tustin is not a planned community and is complex; that as the area urbanizes there are conflicts as to uses; that they support a public workshop; and that they feel that this is a precedent setting document which should not be handled lightly. Carol McCauley, 13591 Saigon Lane, Santa Ana, representing FCA Land Use Committee, read some excerpts from the Tustin News regarding annexation; that this plan is not in keeping with the Newspaper report; and that she requested continuance of this item to a workshop. Dennis Hamilton, 18681 Eunice Place, noted that the last time he spoke at a Planning Commission meeting, he was assured that the City would maintain the tenants of the Specific Plan; that over time the area was annexed to the City; that if they accept the NTSP as originally agreed to by the City Council, then they kept their promise, but he is concerned about the matter. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 9 Dessa Shro~der, 13902 Dall Lane, past member of the NTSP Committee, noted that she commended the Commission on their decision on Annexation 147 and that they showed a tremendous amount of sensitivity to the neighbors; she asked for the same sensitivity to Annexation 149; that the NTSP was sensitive to the people along Newport and the adjacent neighbors; that people's homes are their biggest assets and if they are adversely impacted you take an enormous amount out of their lives. The Public Hearing was closed at 8:30 p.m. Commissioner Baker noted that it was his understanding that the document would be compatible with the NTSP; and asked for a clarification of the specific differences. The Director responded to resident concerns as follows: that the direction staff received was to create a document within the format of the Tustin zoning ordinance which was compatible with the NTSP; that multi-family dwellings are permitted in the NTSP; that planned development in residential areas are permitted with a CUP based on County documents and as a listed use in the RSF district; that unlisted uses in the City zoning ordinances provide administrative mechanisms to determine uses which may not be on the list of permitted uses; that the appropriateness of a certain use can be determined by the Planning Commission or Community Development Director; that there are specific provisions relative to signage in proposed standards but more detailed provisions were referenced to the City's Sign Code since the City's Sign Code was found to be more restrictive than the NTSP; that design guidelines are found in Exhibit B; that through the site plan process, there are certain permissible uses and other uses subject to a Use Permit; that in the RSF-GO district, the only outright permitted uses are residential and support residential uses and all others are subject to a CUP requiring a public hearing; that the Planning Commission standards list outright permitted uses and conditional uses for the GO district; that Tustin has one of the most exhaustive design review in the County; and that anyone has to go through the design review process. She also commented that the problems with the Pasadena Apartments project had nothing to do with the design review process and are not applicable here. She continued with noting that all discretionary approvals require Planning Commission approval; that beyond minor modifications cannot apply to the entire Specific Plan, only to isolated conditions; that the NTSP permitted in the garden office district medical offices, doctors, dentists, chiropractors, and regarding the Hamilton property, there have been no modifications to the NTSP with regards to minimum requirements such as setbacks, etc. Commissioner Baker asked if a multi-family project was approved with a CUP for the property adjacent to the Hamiltons. The Director replied that there could be a two-story structure permitted that might impact her. Commissioner Baker asked if the document replicates the NTSP. The Director affirmed; and noted that staff have supported the North Tustin community; that regarding the comment that there is no public hearing, all discretionary approvals require Planning Commission approval; that if a project meets minimum development standards, it should be processed through the design review process; that staff believes the plan document is compatible with the NTSP. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 10 Commissioner Baker asked for a clarification of the maximum building height. The Director replied that in the RSF district the maximum height is 28 feet; but that in the GO district there are two exceptions, building heights are permitted at 35 feet and at 45 feet. Commissioner Baker asked if that was higher than the NTSP allowed. The Director replied that it was consistent with the NTSP, exactly the same. Commissioner Baker asked about the comment regarding only 6 1/2 units per acre. The Director replied that it was determined by the minimum lot size divided by the area of the annexation area assuming one unit per 10,000 square feet; that this did not recognize that the Plan also allowed planned developments under a CUP with specific language in the NTSP to support higher densisty if a CUP is approved. Commissioner Baker asked if they were permitted with a CUP. The Director replied that they were permitted with a CUP and a public review process. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the property to the west of the annexed area was in Tustin; and asked if that was the area referred to when speaking of the NTSP. The Director replied that it was unincorporated; that the NTSP refers to the entire North Tustin Community, within the sphere of influence of the City of Tustin; and is an area of about 23,000 people. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the organization has a legal status. The Director replied affirmatively as part of the County; that the County adopted the NTSP to work with the community. Commissioner Kasparian asked if the area below and north of Warren Avenue was essentially residential. The Director affirmed. Commissioner Kasparian noted that this was like being in the process of a public hearing for the height of buildings in residential areas; that he can foresee more problems; that he hoped that a lot of people would object to a CUP for 35 or 40 foot buildings and that the Planning Commission would deny the projects; and asked if they could include a provision prohibiting multi- family dwellings in this area, and limit the height to something compatible. The Director replied that the Commission can modify the plan as the Commission desires; but that staff's direction from the City Council was to develop a document that was compatible with the North Tustin standards; that the building heights listed in the new plan are replications of the NTSP standards; that the Planning Commission could have the ability to review every project under design review but that would create a lack of certainty which is unfair; and that it would create a discretionary process leaving everything open and unfair. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 11 Lois Jeffrey commented that there may be legal issues connected with that suggestion; and that if the Commission wanted to require everything be subject to a site development permit or individualized review, the City Attorney's office would have to review the matter and report back. The Director commented that she would not recommend that action. Commissioner Kasparian asked if there was a workshop meeting between the City and the NTSP people. The Director replied that staff had sent out two (2) public hearing notices in the last 30 days. Staff commented that there were only two (2) phone calls three (3) weeks ago on the proposed project; that the document has been available, but there was not much interest, excepting Ms. Hamilton. Commiss$oner Kasparian noted that there were enough people at the meeting this evening to suggested to him that a workshop would be in order if it was within staff's work schedule. Commissioner Kasalek agreed that a workshop would be in order since there seemed to be a difference of opinion as to the document's compatibility with the NTSP; that it might be necessary to make a few changes in the language. Commissioner Shaheen noted that he, too, was uncomfortable with the document as it is; that public workshops were in order; and that they might be within the parameters of the NTSP, but there are misunderstandings to clear up; and that he would like to work with the two groups as a liaison. Commissioner Kasalek noted that she was concerned with the comments regarding this being a precedent setting document; that she remembered back to the annexing, the concerns of the people, and the commitments of the City Council; and that they need to all be happy and agree if this is to be a precedent setting document. Commissioner Baker noted that the people will not be 100% happy; and asked if this could be continued. The Director replied that they could not schedule a workshop before the next meeting, but could continue the meeting to the second meeting in October. Commissioner Kasparian requested where a copy of the NTSP was available. The Director replied that staff has a copy of the document; and that they would continue the matter and provide additional noticing. She also suggested that the Commission be in attendance; and that the people who spoke should fill out a form to be on the mailing list for notification. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Kasalek seconded to postpone action on General Plan Amendment 90-02 and Zone Change 90-03 by continuing item to the regular scheduled Planning Commission meeting of October 22, 1990 and instructing staff to schedule a public workshop in early October sometime. Motion carried 4-0. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 12 9. Conditional Use Permit 90-05 and Desiqn Review 89-71 APPLICANT: LOCATION: ZONING: ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS: REQUEST: DONAHUE SCHRIBER 3501 JAMBOREE ROAD, SUITE 300 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660 ATTENTION: MR. BRAD DECK LOT 13 OF TRACT 12763, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF IRVINE BOULEVARD AND JAMBOREE ROAD NC (NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL), EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN THIS PROJECT IS COVERED BY A PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED EIR (NO. 85-2) FOR THE EAST TUSTIN SPECIFIC PLAN. NO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION IS REQUIRED. 1. APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW AND SITE PLAN FOR A 126,725 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER; AND 2. AUTHORIZATION TO ESTABLISH A SELF SERVICE GASOLINE/CARWASH STATION WITHIN THE CENTER. Recommendation - It is recommended that the Planning Commission take the following actions: 1. Approve the Environmental Determination for the project by adopting Resolution No. 2831; 2. Approve Design Review 89-71 by adoption of Resolution No. 2832, as submitted or revised; and 3. Approve Conditional Use Permit 90-05 by adoption of Resolution No. 2833, as submitted or revised. Presentation: Daniel Fox, Senior Planner Staff made changes to the staff report, as moved. Commissioner Kasparian asked for a clarification of Item 2.1 of Exhibit A of Resolution No. 2832; and asked if the car wash and gas station will be open and closed at the same times. Staff replied that the station was a 24-hour self-service station; and that when customers purchase the required amount of gas, they are able to have a free car wash, on a 24-hour basis. Commissioner Kasparian asked if they approve the application, are they automatically approving the car wash; and if someone is injured in their car while in the car wash, is the City liable. Lois Jeffrey replied that, in general, the City is not liable. The Public Hearing was opened at 9:15 p.m. Brad Beck, project developer with Donahue Shriber, thanked staff and noted that the conditions of approval were acceptable. Commissioner Shaheen asked if they knew any of the major tenants, as yet. Mr. Beck replied that Ralph's and Payless Drugs were major tenants. The Public Hearing closed at 9:16 p.m. Commissioner Baker approved of the project. Commissioner Kasparian indicated that he liked the idea of a car wash and a gas station. Commissioner Kasalek noted that it looks nice. Commissioner Shaheen concurred. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 13 Commissioner KasDar~an moved, Baker seconded to approve Environmental Determination by adoption of Resolution No. 2831 as submitted. Motion carried 4-0. CommissiQDer Kasparian moved, Kasalek seconded to approve Design Review 89-71 by adoption of Resolution No. 2832 revised as follows: Exhibit A, page 3, item C2c: replace tentative tract map with site plan; Exhibit A, pg. 5, 3.1, C: after 6 foot high wing wall, insert: or combination of wing wall and berming of a minimum height of 6 feet...; Exhibit A, page 8, 3.10: after shall be installed, insert: or bonds posted foF such...; Exhibit A, page 13, 7.3: after inside the building, insert: of..., and 7.5: First sentence should read: ..."Shops 1, 2, 3 and 'B' or 'D'"...; delete "No restaurant uses shall be permitted in" and replace with: Provided that, insert after Buildings 'B' and 'D': are not occupied totally as restaurant space (as a freestanding use). Motion ~a~ried 4-0. Commissioner Kasparian moved, Baker seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit 90-05 by adoption of Resolution No. 2833 as submitted. Motion c~rried 4-0. OLD BUSINESS: NEW BUSZNES8= STAFF CONCERNS: 10. Report on Actions taken at September 4, 1990 City Council Meeting. Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Development Director of Community 11. Scheduling of Special Workshops for the Sign Code and ~acific center East Specific Plan. Oral Presentation: Christine Shingleton, Director of Community Development. Commission concurred with 5:00 p.m. Pacific Center workshop on September 24, 1990, Public Hearing on Environmental Impact Report for October 3, 1990. Staff to come back on September 24, 1990 with a list of sign code workshop dates. COl(MISSION CONCERNS: Commissioner Kasparian -Advised he was disappointed in the Commission approving the larger sign for Edwards Theaters. -Wanted to know if there was anything the City could do to review the Resolution passed by the City Council in regard to Carl's Jr. sign at Newport and 5-Freeway and foliage being cut down. The Director advised that at the conclusion of all widening activities, height entitlement would come back to the City Council for review of height. -Advised that the abandoned sign at Treehaven and Seventeenth Streets was removed, but the wires were just cut off and stuck in the ground. Should be checked for possible hazard. Planning Commission Minutes September 10, 1990 Page 14 Commissioner Baker -Expressed concern that the car wash at Newport and Main was in operation. Staff advised that in 1965 a CUP granted by the Planning Commission approved operation of a car wash on that site, it is therefore a legal, non-conforming use, and that the new leasee is in the process of renovating, landscaping, restriping, painting and design upgrades compatible with surrounding areas. Commissioner Kasalek -Inquired about the status of violations at recycling bins at Alpha Beta. Staff advised there are several options, one being revocation of Use Permit. Alpha Beta was contacted and are trying to monitor problem. Staff will keep Commission advised. Commissioner Shaheen -Advised that 2371 Appletree is still being used for storage both in garage and now in yard. The Director advised that this is an active case, will follow up and advise on current status. ADJOURNMENT: At 9:40 p.m. Commission Shaheen moved, Baker seconded to adjourn meeting to the 5:00 p.m. for a Workshop on the Pacific Center East Specific Plan preceding the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting on September 24, 1990 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 300 Centennial Way, Tustin. Chairman Ka~Fitz~trick Secretary